James Swan (Beggers All) has posted an interesting article over at Alpha and Omega Ministries – Catholics Need Catholic Answers, But Will Settle for Protestant Answers. Given a few of our past discussions regarding the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Theology, specifically in relation to Sola Scriptura, this post caught my attention.
One of the Bible’s leading critics is a man by the name of Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a textual critic who has written a number of popular books that attacks the credibility of the Bible, which obviously undermines the Christian worldview. Last year, Dan Wallace provided a very scholarly and solid exchange with Ehrman at the Greer-Heard Forum. At any rate, Ehrman continues to repeat the same accusations against the NT Scriptures and fails to evenly interact with many of the issues raised by Dan Wallace or James White.
At any rate, James Swan observed an interesting trend within the writings and apologetic discourses from Roman Catholics in regards to Bart Ehrman. It appears that when Rome has issues related to the Scriptures, she turns not to the Pope or to Catholic experts. When in need of apologetic work related to the Scriptures, Roman Catholics turn to Protestant scholars! Very fascinating.
Apparently, Roman Catholics and Protestants have a common “enemy” of the faith – Bart Ehrman! I find this interesting because it seems to point towards issues related to Sola Scriptura, though in some sort of back-door fashion. Intriguing.
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
This makes perfect sense to me. I often listen to Catholic radio and it seems that Catholics spend a lot of time doing everything to “prove” that the Bible can’t be used without the help of the Roman Catholic Church. This often sounds to me like the Bible is a bit mistrusted, though I’m sure unintentionally. Evangelicals approach the subject from the other side of the looking glass.
luke, what do you think about Raymond Brown? a girl in youth group gave me his introduction to the new testament. is it good?
Wow, that’s very wierd. On one hand, Catholics are trying to convince us that the Bible isn’t enough and then on the other hand trying to defend that the Bible is enough. Wierd.
Y’all might also be interested in these two counter-lists of arguments Protestants shouldn’t use:
Threshing the wheat
Avoiding Landmines in Roman Catholic Apologetics
Steve: Not really. Catholic arguments that “the Bible isn’t enough” (in whatever ways they mean that) aren’t usually talking about “we don’t even know what the original manuscripts said.”
Some Catholics do make arguments that we need the Church in order to deal with variants, but the major arguments about interpretation really are not the same thing. It doesn’t have to be inconsistent, I mean.
Jurgulum, thanks! I was just about to post that AOMIN link. It’s a good reminder.
One thing that everyone needs to remember in regards to discussing theology with Roman Catholics is that just because a Catholic has told you that he believes something doesn’t necessarily mean that Rome actually teaches it.
Right, especially since there is as wide a continuum of dissent within Roman Catholicism as there is within the Protestant denominations.
On this topic, though, for the most part, the Reformers substantially agreed with Rome about the validity of scripture; their dispute was more over the additions to scripture. Both sides agreed that doctrine could be based on the recorded teachings of the apostles (ala Acts 2:42) but Rome held that the Pope, as the continuation of the apostolic line, could authoritatively define newer doctrines which could conflict with the older. Where Rome believed that orthodoxy came from scripture combined with tradition and papal/church authority, the Reformers held to only scripture (sola scriptura) as the source. So, in that sense, yes, it is valid to say that the RC position is that we need the church to not only deal with variants, but to interpret all of scripture in light of new (Roman Catholic) apostolic teaching. The difference between the two views comes down to the issues of Sola Scriptura (do we need more than the Bible?) and the priesthood of all believers (can we ourselves interpret what it says, or do we need the church?); the common view that both share is that scripture is reliable for faith and doctrine.
The issue on the original posting is about this shared area. Oversimplifying his case, Ehrman is a (former Protestant) agnostic who claims is that the Bible was intentionally changed over time and is therefore untrustworthy, so I could see why Roman Catholic theologians might use Protestant sources here. Since we don’t have anyone to settle the arguments between dissenting views, we may have to be more thorough. The topic matters much more to us on the “sola scriptura” end of the Christian world, so we are more likely to have done the research to refute his claims. Of course, this is a blog at the street-level of Roman Catholic theology, so we can’t draw major conclusions from the results, any more than someone could claim this blog is representative of the Protestant world. At the same time, it does remind us that — even with our differences — we also share substantial areas of belief and similar challenges to our faith.